Liverpoo 1.52 v Stoke City? Lay of the decade. > Betfair Community

Betfair Community

Home › Sports › Football Forum › Liverpoo 1.52 v Stoke City? Lay of the decade.

Switch to Community Classic App Directory

Football

‹ back to topics

There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.

These 568 comments are related to the topic:
Liverpoo 1.52 v Stoke City? Lay of the decade.

Switch to Live View refresh Post Reply

Post your reply

Page 10 of 15 • Previous | 1 | ... | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | ... | 15 | Next

sort by:

Show per page

Replies: 568

By:

themover When: 08 Oct 12 21:54

sofaking said in his OP he would be laying and trading in-play, don't see why that makes him a clown tbh

By:

scaredmoney When: 08 Oct 12 21:59

Good luck with your value bets too. You made three bets. Are they value or not? I don't know. The time between the bets is pretty irrelevant. I would suggest you focus on estimating the value of each price on its own merits rather than factoring in any previous bet you've made on the same market. Any previous bet you've made is completely irrelevant to the next bet you make.

By:

CJ70 When: 08 Oct 12 22:01

Well thanks for the insults Rowan86. I'ts nice to get abused by someone who talks about intelligence so much.

Keep up the good work.

By:

CJ70 When: 08 Oct 12 22:02

It's also smart to put the punctuation in the right place.

By:

Rowan86 When: 08 Oct 12 22:03

themover

sofaking said in his OP he would be laying and trading in-play, don't see why that makes him a clown tbh

Did you think 1.77 was good value for Liverpool in the 35th minute then? If you do, then surely 1.52 wasn't lay of the decade pre kick-off.

If 1.77 was poor value, then SofaKing shouldn't have made the bet.

By:

Rowan86 When: 08 Oct 12 22:06

CJ70

Well thanks for the insults Rowan86. I'ts nice to get abused by someone who talks about intelligence so much.

Keep up the good work.

I'm afraid you haven't said much meaningful in this thread CJ. You've just made seemingly random, empty comments.

By:

CJ70 When: 08 Oct 12 22:11

Oct 8, 2012 -- 10:06PM, Rowan86 wrote:

CJ70 Well thanks for the insults Rowan86. I'ts nice to get abused by someone who talks about intelligence so much.Keep up the good work.I'm afraid you haven't said much meaningful in this thread CJ. You've just made seemingly random, empty comments.

I'm not trying to justify making a fan bet, mate.

At the end of the day, you got caught backing short odds on a result that was unlikely to happen. You're now having a go at sofaking for doing exactly what he said he'd do, while agreeing with him that the prices he took were value.

Where do you want it to go?

By:

themover When: 08 Oct 12 22:14

That's not the way it works Rowan, but I appreciate what you are saying. I will give you an example using horse racing, apologies if you aren't into horses but it will demonstrate the point. A horse always front-runs and has done in every event to date. It is 12/1 pre-race. Whether that 12/1 is value is debatable and I don't know if it is or not. But I do know the horse front-runs and that the longer it's at the front the shorter the price gets. So I buy at 12/1. I can watch the race but I will be 10 seconds behind live so even at the time I could see would be an ideal lay time the price has already gone. So I have a pre-determined lay price, let's say 8/1. Horse goes off and leads and price goes as low as 5/1 before tailing off. My 8/1 is matched so the trade is done. The chances are that my lay of 8/1 was not a value bet, as indeed my 12/1 back might not have been but I wasn't betting on the end result I was betting on a price movement.

By:

sofaking When: 08 Oct 12 22:17

This Rowan clown has been on this thread pretty much non-stop for 31 hours. And he is twisting everything I've said. I backed them at 1.77 (A LITTLE as I mentioned in my original post) to free up some funds for a punt in the Spurs v Villa game. Anyone who believes that Liverpool at 1.52 are great value against ANY team in a PL is a GRADE A MUG in my book.

By:

Rowan86 When: 08 Oct 12 22:19

CJ70

I'm not trying to justify making a fan bet, mate.

At the end of the day, you got caught backing short odds on a result that was unlikely to happen.

The question isn't whether it was likely to happen. Of course it was likely to happen. You can't seriously be saying that had less than a 50% chance of happening. The question is whether it had more than a 65.8% chance of occuring, as the back was made at 1.52. I might have overestimated it by a few % perhaps, but probably wasn't that far wrong.

You're now having a go at sofaking for doing exactly what he said he'd do,
while agreeing with him that the prices he took were value.

No, you're missing the point! I've never said his bets were value. I'm saying it's a complete contradiction to say that Liverpool are lay of the decade at 1.52 pre kick-off and then back them at 1.77 after 35 minutes of Stoke having most of the possession! He can't even explain why he did that himself! I bet you still don't even understand my point even though I've explained it about 20 times. The fact that you can't even comprehend the point I'm making indicates that you probably struggle with basic gambling principles.

By:

Darlo Bantam When: 08 Oct 12 22:21

Oct 8, 2012 -- 10:14PM, themover wrote:

That's not the way it works Rowan, but I appreciate what you are saying. I will give you an example using horse racing, apologies if you aren't into horses but it will demonstrate the point. A horse always front-runs and has done in every event to date. It is 12/1 pre-race. Whether that 12/1 is value is debatable and I don't know if it is or not. But I do know the horse front-runs and that the longer it's at the front the shorter the price gets. So I buy at 12/1. I can watch the race but I will be 10 seconds behind live so even at the time I could see would be an ideal lay time the price has already gone. So I have a pre-determined lay price, let's say 8/1. Horse goes off and leads and price goes as low as 5/1 before tailing off. My 8/1 is matched so the trade is done. The chances are that my lay of 8/1 was not a value bet, as indeed my 12/1 back might not have been but I wasn't betting on the end result I was betting on a price movement.

That's where I agree with trading. You're finding a value trade and that's the key. Trading out for trading's sake is a bullshit concept unless you have pre-defined entry and exit points as you've explained. It's similar to how I do some of my trading. I don't know if the entry point is value, or if the exit point is value, but I do believe the price difference is value. Perhaps that's also bullshit but not as much as laying or backing simply to green out if you think your entry point was value in the first place.

By:

owl4life When: 08 Oct 12 22:22

You guys should have a tipping contest.

Its the only way.

By:

sofaking When: 08 Oct 12 22:23

For anyone who missed it. Rowan's bets for this game.

Rowan86 • October 7, 2012 3:13 PM BST
My bets were Liverpool 2-0 at 8.2 and Liverpool 3-0 at 12.0. Painful to see people laying Liverpool at 1.52. That's a big price. Rowan86 • October 7, 2012 3:03 PM BST
1.52 is a big price for Liverpool today. Great bet.

By:

sofaking When: 08 Oct 12 22:24

By:

sofaking When: 08 Oct 12 22:25

A picture tells a thousand words. No need to respond Rowan. I'm done with you.

By:

CJ70 When: 08 Oct 12 22:26

Well one thing in your locker is that you have more luck with the quote button than I do, Rowan86.

To the substance. Of course it was unlikely to happen, the only time that Liverpool have won this year is the derby at Everton and Chelsea before the cup final. Hardly confidence to back at near 1/2.

I'm not missing the point. Sofaking backed at 1.77, you backed at 1.52. Which price don't you believe is value?

More insults

By:

sofaking When: 08 Oct 12 22:27

Don't waste your time CJ. He's a pathetic nerd who studies statistics and probability but has no idea how things work in the real world.

By:

CJ70 When: 08 Oct 12 22:29

Oi! I study statistics.

By:

Darlo Bantam When: 08 Oct 12 22:31

Oct 8, 2012 -- 10:26PM, CJ70 wrote:

Well one thing in your locker is that you have more luck with the quote button than I do, Rowan86.To the substance. Of course it was unlikely to happen, the only time that Liverpool have won this year is the derby at Everton and Chelsea before the cup final. Hardly confidence to back at near 1/2.I'm not missing the point. Sofaking backed at 1.77, you backed at 1.52. Which price don't you believe is value?More insults

Except sofaking thought Liverpool had a less than 56% chance of winning at the outset to the extent it was "lay of the decade" yet had a better than 65% of winning after 35 minutes and still 0-0.

By:

Darlo Bantam When: 08 Oct 12 22:32

Oops. Got those figures wrong way round!

By:

Rowan86 When: 08 Oct 12 22:32

CJ70

I'm not missing the point. Sofaking backed at 1.77, you backed at 1.52. Which price don't you believe is value?

More insults

Let's have another go!

Right. IF, as SofaKing stated, 1.52 is lay of the decade pre kick-off, then surely 1.77 can't be a back after 35 minutes of Stoke having most of the possession.

The other possibility is that 1.52 wasn't lay of the decade, in which case, why did he say it was?

If you can't understand that. I can't be bothered with you.

And you priced Liverpool as above 2.0 at home to Stoke?! Wow, I wish I had that kind of profit margin! You're either a genius or mad.

By:

sofaking When: 08 Oct 12 22:33

Posted above 15 minutes ago: "I backed them at 1.77 (A LITTLE as I mentioned in my original post) to free up some funds for a punt in the Spurs v Villa game."

By:

sofaking When: 08 Oct 12 22:35

Oct 8, 2012 -- 10:29PM, CJ70 wrote:

Oi! I study statistics.

No offense CJ. You're no nerd.

By:

Darlo Bantam When: 08 Oct 12 22:35

Oct 8, 2012 -- 10:33PM, sofaking wrote:

Posted above 15 minutes ago: "I backed them at 1.77 (A LITTLE as I mentioned in my original post) to free up some funds for a punt in the Spurs v Villa game."

And pres tell what would you have done had Liverpool scored in the first 35 minutes?

By:

Rowan86 When: 08 Oct 12 22:41

Sofa King: I backed them at 1.77 (A LITTLE as I mentioned in my original post) to free up some funds for a punt in the Spurs v Villa game.

AHAHAHAHAH. You did it to free up some funds did you?! Why's it taken you so long to tell us that? Why didn't you just say that's why you did it from the offset and save us the argument?! That's great!

By:

Rowan86 When: 08 Oct 12 22:46

Now that SofaKing's realised I'm actually making a good point, he's come up with his excuse. Pity that it would have been far more witting to use that excuse earlier on!

By:

sofaking When: 08 Oct 12 22:47

Didn't know I needed to explain my ever movement to you.

Sure it looks like you have nothing better to be doing with your time anyway.

By:

sofaking When: 08 Oct 12 22:48

Oct 8, 2012 -- 10:46PM, Rowan86 wrote:

Now that SofaKing's realised I'm actually making a good point, he's come up with his excuse. Pity that it would have been far more witting to use that excuse earlier on!

I certainly will never agree that you've made any good points here. You don't talk an awful lot of shyte though.

By:

Darlo Bantam When: 08 Oct 12 22:49

Sounds to me like you overstaked and panicked.

By:

Rowan86 When: 08 Oct 12 22:49

Haha bollox

By:

Rowan86 When: 08 Oct 12 22:51

Besides, didn't you say it was to "reduce liabilities" and "protect your bank"?

ahahahahah Funny how you're not using that one anymore!

By:

CJ70 When: 08 Oct 12 22:51

Oct 8, 2012 -- 10:31PM, Darlo Bantam wrote:

Oct 8, 2012 -- 10:26PM, CJ70 wrote:Well one thing in your locker is that you have more luck with the quote button than I do, Rowan86.To the substance. Of course it was unlikely to happen, the only time that Liverpool have won this year is the derby at Everton and Chelsea before the cup final. Hardly confidence to back at near 1/2.I'm not missing the point. Sofaking backed at 1.77, you backed at 1.52. Which price don't you believe is value?More insultsExcept sofaking thought Liverpool had a less than 56% chance of winning at the outset to the extent it was "lay of the decade" yet had a better than 65% of winning after 35 minutes and still 0-0.

I'm not sure any of us know sofaking's intentions apart from the limited information he's given us. We know he took some value at 1.77, what if Liverpool were trading at 1.72 at that time? What was happening on the pitch? Did Liverpool have a free kick, did they have a corner? All things we don't know.

What I do know, is if the intention is there to trade the game then it would be silly to just punt and leave it.

By:

sofaking When: 08 Oct 12 22:52

Oct 8, 2012 -- 10:49PM, Darlo Bantam wrote:

Sounds to me like you overstaked and panicked.

You'd be very wrong about that, I can assure you. Betting is just a hobby for me (and I do well out of it).

By:

ror When: 08 Oct 12 22:52

It's funny. Rowan is really going the wrong way about arguing his case, Sofa is crying because he made peanuts on what was a decent initial position. Everyone else is just confused over what happened and who is right.

The thing is, would you have backed at 1.77 if you hadn't made the initial lay?

If not, you shouldn't back then either, but it is hard not to wipe out the red side of the book, it makes it psychologically easier, I've made the same mistake myself many times before.

Trading out doesn't cancel out previous bets, all previous bets are still settled. By adding more bets you are making more punts, even if you are doing from a trading perspective.

Going into a bet as a "back to lay" means deliberate overstaking with a view to (hopefully) greening on a market correction, but also requires being prepared to red out too if that doesn't happen.

If you always green (let's say you always green at evens), but never red, then you are essentially halving the odds you are getting on any event.

By:

sofaking When: 08 Oct 12 22:55

I stopped reading that nonsense post when I got to " Sofa is crying because he made peanuts on what was a decent initial position". Another clueless mug.

By:

Darlo Bantam When: 08 Oct 12 22:55

Oct 8, 2012 -- 10:52PM, sofaking wrote:

Oct 8, 2012 -- 10:49PM, Darlo Bantam wrote:Sounds to me like you overstaked and panicked.You'd be very wrong about that, I can assure you. Betting is just a hobby for me (and I do well out of it).

I'm not wrong. You should never use too much of your bank on any bet since any bet at any price can go wrong. If you had to green out to free up funds then by definition you overstaked.

By:

Darlo Bantam When: 08 Oct 12 22:56

Oct 8, 2012 -- 10:55PM, sofaking wrote:

I stopped reading that nonsense post when I got to " Sofa is crying because he made peanuts on what was a decent initial position".

By:

CJ70 When: 08 Oct 12 22:56

Oct 8, 2012 -- 10:32PM, Rowan86 wrote:

CJ70 I'm not missing the point. Sofaking backed at 1.77, you backed at 1.52. Which price don't you believe is value?More insultsLet's have another go!Right. IF, as SofaKing stated, 1.52 is lay of the decade pre kick-off, then surely 1.77 can't be a back after 35 minutes of Stoke having most of the possession. The other possibility is that 1.52 wasn't lay of the decade, in which case, why did he say it was? If you can't understand that. I can't be bothered with you.And you priced Liverpool as above 2.0 at home to Stoke?! Wow, I wish I had that kind of profit margin! You're either a genius or mad.

Rowan86, I'm just glad there are people like you about who will back at any odds and force the price downwards.

If you are really interested I don't price anything on the result of a game. I couldn't give a hoot who wins or if it's a draw.

By:

sofaking When: 08 Oct 12 22:57

Darlo and Rowan are the same person. Setting up two accounts so that he can agree with himself. PATHETIC.

By:

Rowan86 When: 08 Oct 12 22:58

Good post ror. That's another angle. I think my angle was perfectly valid though. In fact our cases overlap each other quite a lot.